Gran Turismo7058
(Banned)
- 4,860
The new Mustang. going 1960's.
- Thread starter Gran Turismo7058
- 26 comments
- 993 views
- 6,977
- old-guy64
I think that Ford is onto something. What with the T-bird "going back to its roots". Now the 'Stang. I like it.
I do think it ought to have at least a vestigal back seat.
I saw it first in MT. My first thought was 1967 Shelby GT500KR is reborn!.
It certainly makes the current Mustang look "doggy".
I do think it ought to have at least a vestigal back seat.
I saw it first in MT. My first thought was 1967 Shelby GT500KR is reborn!.
It certainly makes the current Mustang look "doggy".
The car isn't all that big. In fact, it's hardly any bigger than the current model. The reason the 19's look like 16's is because the car is imbalanced. Another example is the Lancer EVO 8: same frame, but different body panels, and the stock 17" wheels look like they're 14". If Ford can balance out the dimensions (top half relative to bottom half), then they may have a real decent-looking car on their hands...for the first time in decades.
Gran Turismo7058
(Banned)
- 4,860
They, It cleary Says they are trying to relate designs from the 1960 Fords.
1st is was the GT40.
2nd was the Thunderbird.
3rd was the Mustang.
Yep, they are up to something.
- 135
I dont like it. It looks to "plastic" like the Dodge Ram (especially with the bonnet scoops) and too squarish (like the Cadillac). I'm no great Ford fan but I liked the previous look better.
ShobThaBob
Premium
- 2,651
- rosooftw
I am in love with coupe. The drop top is ok i suppose. My only complaint is the taillights. They dont do all that much for me. But the car as a whole is a definite improvement over the current style.
- 1,695
Well, I dont particularly like the idea of retro design, although that design is nice looking.
The Good news for the Mustang: Ford finally gave it a new chassis.
ALL Mustangs between 1978-2003 have the EXACT same frame and chassis which Ford has not bothered to redesign or re-concieve since 1978 because they were trying to cut costs.
The Mustangs new chassis is the same one whcih the Lincoln LS Sedan and the new Ford Thunderbird are built on.
The Bad news for Mustang: The new chassis it is going to be built on has alot more to it than the old Mustang chassis.
The new Mustangs will not be able to weigh any less than about 3400lbs for a base model and be expecting a curb weight of around 3700-3800lbs for a fully dressed V8 top of the line Mustang GT.
The convertible model will be well over 4,000lbs at around (est.)4,250lbs give or take.
The Concept Mustang (Pictured above) has the 4.6L V8 currently used in the Mustang and a whole slew of other Ford Cars, Trucks Vans etc. However, the concept Mustangs' 4.6L V8 has been tweaked to 300hp (Given the same treatment as the Marauder and Mustang Mach 1's engine.) Unfortunately this engine has been described as lacking in torque and quite peaky like a Honda VTEC motor.
Automotive Journalists have been saying that they dont expect the new production Mustangs 4.6L V8 to have anything over 280hp. The V6 Mustang will have the same engine that has been offered in the V6 Mustangs for the last 4-5 years. (3.8L 190hp)
I would not want to drive a new Mustang Convertible with the V6. 190hp and 4,300lbs dont mix.
The transmission is apparently going to be the same.
It is easy to think that the Mustang has gotten worse with the extra weight and extreme drop in performance potential. However, I see it as a good thing. The Mustang will now have a crash test rating that Ford wont have to be hiding from the public. The new Mustang will also probably be alot stiffer. people have said nothing but good things about the chassis feel of the Thunderbird and Lincoln LS.
Most of this info is from www.Blueovalnews.com and a few of the mainstream magazines.
The Good news for the Mustang: Ford finally gave it a new chassis.
ALL Mustangs between 1978-2003 have the EXACT same frame and chassis which Ford has not bothered to redesign or re-concieve since 1978 because they were trying to cut costs.
The Mustangs new chassis is the same one whcih the Lincoln LS Sedan and the new Ford Thunderbird are built on.
The Bad news for Mustang: The new chassis it is going to be built on has alot more to it than the old Mustang chassis.
The new Mustangs will not be able to weigh any less than about 3400lbs for a base model and be expecting a curb weight of around 3700-3800lbs for a fully dressed V8 top of the line Mustang GT.
The convertible model will be well over 4,000lbs at around (est.)4,250lbs give or take.
The Concept Mustang (Pictured above) has the 4.6L V8 currently used in the Mustang and a whole slew of other Ford Cars, Trucks Vans etc. However, the concept Mustangs' 4.6L V8 has been tweaked to 300hp (Given the same treatment as the Marauder and Mustang Mach 1's engine.) Unfortunately this engine has been described as lacking in torque and quite peaky like a Honda VTEC motor.
Automotive Journalists have been saying that they dont expect the new production Mustangs 4.6L V8 to have anything over 280hp. The V6 Mustang will have the same engine that has been offered in the V6 Mustangs for the last 4-5 years. (3.8L 190hp)
I would not want to drive a new Mustang Convertible with the V6. 190hp and 4,300lbs dont mix.
The transmission is apparently going to be the same.
It is easy to think that the Mustang has gotten worse with the extra weight and extreme drop in performance potential. However, I see it as a good thing. The Mustang will now have a crash test rating that Ford wont have to be hiding from the public. The new Mustang will also probably be alot stiffer. people have said nothing but good things about the chassis feel of the Thunderbird and Lincoln LS.
Most of this info is from www.Blueovalnews.com and a few of the mainstream magazines.
- 13,719
- Indiana
- ViperManiac
I'd much rather have an older stang than that ugly ass thing.
Wow. If that's true, then the new Mustang could be as "successful" as the Mitsubishi 3000GT, another good-on-paper-but-way-too-heavy car). Ford should try to make the Mustang a real 2-seater. At least that way the car could be smaller, less flimsy (since all their other large cars are about as structurally sound as a cardboard box), and a lot lighter (and thus faster).
- 3,300
I think it was a mistake Ford making the brake lights larger than the GT500KR, it looks sort of ugly...
- 405
that car is not anywhere near as squarish as the last model and i dont see how you could consider the dodge ram palstic looking.
who is going to buy a $100,000 car with only 400hp, thats how much the mustang should be putting out. and they should make it a real two seater and possibly look into making the trunk shorter. they seriously need to redesign the the rear end and the scoops in the hood.
- 1,695
Originally posted by NASCARnut
Wow. I was reading Autoworld, I think, in Krogers and they said the GT concept had a supercharged 4.6 with 400 hp and 375 lb ft.
And the base version with the V-6 would have 215 hp. Then eventually have a 250 hp V-6 as an option.
Hmmm....I like my 400 hp better than your 300.
Supercars.net stated in their coverage of the LA Auto Show that the concept had a 300hp N/A 4.6L V8.
Despite the fact that the Mustang is now very heavy, slower, worse on gas mileage etc. I see this as a good thing, because it has a stiffer structure with apparently a good chassis feel (According to tests written up about the Lincoln LS and Thunderbird).
The older Mustangs'(1978-2003) chassis was not very well designed at all. It had potential to be kind of light (2,700lbs for the 1986-1992 Notch-Back Mustangs) but it was also very heavy in some versions (3,900lbs for the 2003 SVT Cobra Convertible).
The problem that kept Mustangs from being very competitive without SEVERE modifications to the chassis was the fact that the Mustang chassis is flimsy and has ALOT of trouble getting power to the pavement. This might have been on purpose to make burnouts easier, but on a real race track, the Mustang was not a car you would prefer to have. Mustangs since 1978-2003 have not been very successful in racing at all; Except for SALEEN has had some success in the late 80's using Mustangs.
SALEEN Mustangs might have 425hp Supercharged 5.8L V8 engines. But who is going to pay over $100,000 USD for a car that needs a fair amount of finesse just to do 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. I can't remember where I read this, but it was in a MAJOR US based car testing magazine. They said that the SALEEN Mustangs had WAY more power than the Mustang chassis could ever competently handle. In reality, to have a Mustang still driveable and not too much of a handful. You couldn't have much over 300hp before major problems make themselves apparent.
I see the new chassis as a good thing. Ford will now be able to make a Mustang worth considering. They will also probably be able to put more power into it with the new chassis, capable of controlling it all. Mind you, Ford is going to really have to put one helluva engine in the new Mustang to keep up with a Z06.
I will make one prediction for the future: Given the fact that Mustangs are now going to be beluga whales weight-wise; Mustangs will not touch the Z06 in any way (handling, stopping acceleration) unless they put a 500+hp motor in there, and they won't.
Gran Turismo7058
(Banned)
- 4,860
If you wanna see plastic look at the Chevy Avalanche.
- 3,300
Also the Honda Element...
ShobThaBob
Premium
- 2,651
- rosooftw
I think its about time people start comparing the newer mustangs to Z06s. For the longest time, the highest production cobras were begging to keep up with trans ams and z28s. Now people are talking about the mustang keeping up with a Z06. I think that's quite a leap in such short a time. Btw, the 03 cobra has infinitely better handling than the other mustangs...via independant rear suspension, which kind of makes up for the extreme weight.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Eh, it's not bad for a product of retro design, but I kind of think that retro design itself is kind of a cop-out. People have always looked to the past to try and recapture lost glory, and to take advantage of hindsight by picking and choosing among the prior successes.
That's valid, and that's how you learn from mistakes and successes. But it has to be done subtlely, or it's nothing but laziness and a cheap grab for a pre-existing set of emotions and responses. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, but the challenge is to design a new Mustang, not just re-create the car everybody lusted after as a teenager but couldn't afford till they were 40.
On a design-specific note, why are machine-gun emplacements the 'in' thing as a design inspiration? The Mustang conce, the TT, the 350Z, the new Accord, and dozens of other cars all have tiny slits for windows and look like I'd bump my head (I'm only 5'-10") geting in?
The thing I loved about '85-'95 Hondas was the huge greenhouse. It's easy to look around, you feel like you're sitting much higher than you are, and visibility is fantastic. All of the new cars seem very clostrophobic.
That's valid, and that's how you learn from mistakes and successes. But it has to be done subtlely, or it's nothing but laziness and a cheap grab for a pre-existing set of emotions and responses. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, but the challenge is to design a new Mustang, not just re-create the car everybody lusted after as a teenager but couldn't afford till they were 40.
On a design-specific note, why are machine-gun emplacements the 'in' thing as a design inspiration? The Mustang conce, the TT, the 350Z, the new Accord, and dozens of other cars all have tiny slits for windows and look like I'd bump my head (I'm only 5'-10") geting in?
The thing I loved about '85-'95 Hondas was the huge greenhouse. It's easy to look around, you feel like you're sitting much higher than you are, and visibility is fantastic. All of the new cars seem very clostrophobic.
Ha I just love the way you emphasised the C.
I'm not a fan of retro deisgns either, but to me it looks like a chopped down AM Vantage, without the supercharged V8 outputting 550+ bhp. When I look at the side profile, the word slab comes to mind.
Another thing, why is it with most cars every new generation or re-deisgn, the car seems to gain weight?
I'm not a fan of retro deisgns either, but to me it looks like a chopped down AM Vantage, without the supercharged V8 outputting 550+ bhp. When I look at the side profile, the word slab comes to mind.
Another thing, why is it with most cars every new generation or re-deisgn, the car seems to gain weight?
- 1,695
Well, new designs mean new chassis with more safety features and technology. Stiffer chassis etc.
If a car is very heavy, and it isnt a car with every option/feature known to man (i.e. Mercedes S-Class or Jaguar XJ8 etc) then it usually means there is a lack of high tech materials and not much engineering. i.e. The Kia Sedona Mini-Van weighs something ridiculous like 5,600lbs. This is because they didnt bother using lightweight metals and they used to much metal to acheive the same level of structural rigidity that could've been reached with a little more design effort.
The part that puzzles me about a manufacturer going to a retro design is what are they going to do for the NEXT generation after this one.
Like what direction will the new Beetle, Mini Cooper and PT Cruiser take after this generation? Will they completely redesign it? Keep the same look but with futuristic cues or what?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford apologising for holding the Mustang back with this hokey publicity stunt.
I remember a few years back when Ford openly bashed their own '86-'93 Mustang's in an effort to promote the newest generation of Mustang ('98-'03 Generation). They said something like, "This new Mustang really shows how far Ford has come in last 10 years since the crude and un-refined Fox Bodied Mustangs." They then went on to break down all the reason why the 5.0 Motor was crappy. They said stuff like, this new engine (4.6 DOHC) actually has power in all rpms as opposed to (the 5.0 OHV, which had) just a quick zap of power at the low rpms and then the engine has run out of breath. I remember alot of Mustang owners were pretty pissed off with Ford including my brother.
If a car is very heavy, and it isnt a car with every option/feature known to man (i.e. Mercedes S-Class or Jaguar XJ8 etc) then it usually means there is a lack of high tech materials and not much engineering. i.e. The Kia Sedona Mini-Van weighs something ridiculous like 5,600lbs. This is because they didnt bother using lightweight metals and they used to much metal to acheive the same level of structural rigidity that could've been reached with a little more design effort.
The part that puzzles me about a manufacturer going to a retro design is what are they going to do for the NEXT generation after this one.
Like what direction will the new Beetle, Mini Cooper and PT Cruiser take after this generation? Will they completely redesign it? Keep the same look but with futuristic cues or what?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Ford apologising for holding the Mustang back with this hokey publicity stunt.
I remember a few years back when Ford openly bashed their own '86-'93 Mustang's in an effort to promote the newest generation of Mustang ('98-'03 Generation). They said something like, "This new Mustang really shows how far Ford has come in last 10 years since the crude and un-refined Fox Bodied Mustangs." They then went on to break down all the reason why the 5.0 Motor was crappy. They said stuff like, this new engine (4.6 DOHC) actually has power in all rpms as opposed to (the 5.0 OHV, which had) just a quick zap of power at the low rpms and then the engine has run out of breath. I remember alot of Mustang owners were pretty pissed off with Ford including my brother.
